Editing Chinese wall (section)

== Etymology ==
[[File:The Great Wall of China at Jinshanling-edit.jpg|thumb|The term is said to allude to the [[Great Wall of China]] but the screen walls of [[Chinese architecture|Chinese internal architecture]] have also been attributed as its origin.]]
[[Bryan A. Garner|Bryan Garner]]'s ''Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage'' states that the metaphor title "derives ''of course'' from the [[Great Wall of China]]",<ref name="Garner2001">{{cite book|first=Bryan A. |last=Garner|author-link=Bryan A. Garner|title=A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage|url=https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofmode00garn_0|url-access=registration|year=2001|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-514236-5|page=[https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofmode00garn_0/page/152 152]|access-date=15 January 2021}}, italics added</ref> although an alternative explanation links the idea to the screen walls of [[Chinese architecture|Chinese internal architecture]].<ref>[https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2014/01/30/readers-editor-is-the-term-chinese-wall-racist/ Readers’ editor: Is the term “Chinese wall” racist?], published 30 January 2014, accessed 15 January 2021</ref>

The term was popularized in the [[United States]] following the [[stock market]] [[crash of 1929]], when the U.S. government legislated information separation between [[investment bank]]ers and [[brokerage firm]]s, in order to limit the conflict of interest between objective company analysis and the desire for successful [[initial public offering]]s.<ref>{{cite web|last=Investopedia|title=The Chinese Wall Protects Against Conflicts Of Interest|url=http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/090501.asp#axzz1mIc41gWQ|access-date=13 February 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119154613/http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/090501.asp#axzz1mIc41gWQ|archive-date=2012-01-19|url-status=live}}</ref> Rather than prohibiting one company from engaging in both businesses, the government permitted the implementation of Chinese-wall procedures.

A leading note on the subject published in 1980 in the ''[[University of Pennsylvania Law Review]]'' titled "The Chinese Wall Defense to Law-Firm Disqualification" perpetuated the use of the term.<ref>"The Chinese Wall Defense to Law-Firm Disqualification" (1980) 128 ''[[University of Pennsylvania Law Review]]''. 677</ref><ref name=Justia/>

===Objections to the term ''Chinese wall''===
There have been disputes about the use of the term for some decades, particularly in the legal and banking sectors. The term can be seen both as [[Cultural sensitivity|culturally insensitive]] and an inappropriate reflection on [[Chinese culture]] and trade, which are now extensively integrated into the global market.{{citation needed|date=January 2021}}

In ''[[KPMG|Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.]] v. Superior Court'' (1988), Presiding Justice Harry W. Low, a [[Chinese American]],<ref>{{cite web|title=Hon. Harry W. Low (Ret.)|url=http://www.jamsadr.com/low/|website=[[JAMS (alternative dispute resolution)|JAMS]]|access-date=17 October 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141021130023/http://www.jamsadr.com/low/|archive-date=2014-10-21|url-status=live}}</ref> wrote a [[concurring opinion]] specifically in order "to express my profound objection to the use of this phrase in this context". He called the term a "piece of legal flotsam which should be emphatically abandoned", and suggested "ethics wall" as a more suitable alternative. He maintained that the "continued use of the term would be insensitive to the ethnic identity of the many persons of Chinese descent".<ref name=Justia>[http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/200/272.html ''Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Superior Court''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141017113530/http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/200/272.html |date=2014-10-17 }}, 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 293–294, 245 ''Cal.Rptr.'' 873, 887–888 (1988)</ref><ref>{{cite news|author1=David Hricik|title=Chinese Walls: Racist?|url=http://legalethicsforum.typepad.com/blog/2005/06/chinese_walls_r.html|work=Legal Ethics Forum|date=June 8, 2005|access-date=2014-10-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141020190146/http://legalethicsforum.typepad.com/blog/2005/06/chinese_walls_r.html|archive-date=2014-10-20|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Alternative terms===
Alternative phrases include "screen",<ref>See ''Martin v. MacDonald Estate (Gray)'' [1991] 1 WWR 705 at 715, as per Sopinka J.</ref> "[[wikt:firewall|firewall]]", "[[cone of silence (radar)|cone of silence"]],<!-- could this be [[code of silence]] instead?--> and "ethical wall".

"Screen", or the verb "to screen", is the preferred term of the [[American Bar Association]] [[ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct|Model Rules of Professional Conduct]].<ref name=mr>[http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_1_0.html "Model Rules of Professional Conduct"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101204092521/http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_1_0.html |date=2010-12-04 }}</ref> The ABA Model Rules define ''screening'' as "the isolation of a lawyer from any participation in a matter through the timely imposition of procedures within a firm that are reasonably adequate under the circumstances to protect information that the isolated lawyer is obligated to protect under these Rules or other law",<ref name=mr /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.halt.org/reform_projects/lawyer_accountability/discipline_system/rules_of_conduct/ |title=HALT - Lawyer Accountability |access-date=2010-03-24 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101030162131/http://halt.org/reform_projects/lawyer_accountability/discipline_system/rules_of_conduct/ |archive-date=2010-10-30 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.aallnet.org/products/pub_sp0809/pub_sp0809_Legal.pdf |title={title} |access-date=2010-03-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100613061725/http://aallnet.org/products/pub_sp0809/pub_sp0809_Legal.pdf |archive-date=2010-06-13 |url-status=dead }}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=February 2020}}<ref>{{cite book|author1=Sharon D. Nelson|author2=David K. Isom|author3=John W. Simek|title=Information Security for Lawyers and Law Firms|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tYnc0tXET1IC&pg=PA25|access-date=6 August 2012|year=2006|publisher=American Bar Association|isbn=978-1-59031-663-4|pages=25&nbsp;ff}}</ref> and suitable "screening procedures" have been approved where [[paralegal]]s have moved from one law firm to another and have worked on cases for their former employer which may conflict with the interests of their current employer and the clients they represent.<ref>American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Informal Opinion 88-1526: BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct 901:318, adopted 22 June 1988, quoted in [[Connecticut Superior Court]], [https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59148867add7b049344f3130 Rivera v Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, No. 516364], 5 August 1991, accessed 16 January 2021</ref>